The role of forests in the EU climate policy: are we on the right track?

BACKGROUND: The European Union (EU) has committed to achieve climate neutrality by 2050. This requires a rapid reduction of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and ensuring that any remaining emissions are balanced through CO2 removals. Forests play a crucial role in this plan: they are currently the main option for removing CO2 from the atmosphere and additionally, wood use can store carbon durably and help reduce fossil emissions. To stop and reverse the decline of the forest carbon sink, the EU has recently revised the regulation on land use, land-use change and forestry (LULUCF), and set a target of - 310 Mt CO2e net removals for the LULUCF sector in 2030. RESULTS: In this study, we clarify the role of common concepts in forest management - net annual increment, harvest and mortality - in determining the forest sink. We then evaluate to what extent the forest sink is on track to meet the climate goals of the EU. For this assessment we use data from the latest national GHG inventories and a forest model (Carbon Budget Model). Our findings indicate that on the EU level, the recent decrease in increment and the increase in harvest and mortality are causing a rapid drop in the forest sink. Furthermore, continuing the past forest management practices is projected to further decrease the sink. Finally, we discuss options for enhancing the sinks through forest management while taking into account adaptation and resilience. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings show that the EU forest sink is quickly developing away from the EU climate targets. Stopping and reversing this trend requires rapid implementation of climate-smart forest management, with improved and more timely monitoring of GHG fluxes. This enhancement is crucial for tracking progress towards the EU's climate targets, where the role of forests has become - and is expected to remain - more prominent than ever before.

Setting the forest reference levels in the European Union: overview and challenges.

BACKGROUND: The contribution of EU forests to climate change mitigation in 2021-2025 is assessed through the Forest Reference Levels (FRLs). The FRL is a projected country-level benchmark of net greenhouse gas emissions against which the future net emissions will be compared. The FRL models the hypothetical development of EU forest carbon sink if the historical management practices were continued, taking into account age dynamics. The Member States' FRLs have been recently adopted by the European Commission with the delegated Regulation (EU) 2021/268 amending the Regulation (EU) 2018/841. Considering the complexity of interactions between forest growth, management and carbon fluxes, there is a need to understand uncertainties linked to the FRL determination. RESULTS: We assessed the methodologies behind the modelled FRLs and evaluated the foreseen impact of continuation of management practices and age dynamics on the near-future EU27 + UK forest carbon sink. Most of the countries implemented robust modelling approaches for simulating management practices and age dynamics within the FRL framework, but faced several challenges in ensuring consistency with historical estimates. We discuss that the projected 16% increase in harvest in 2021-2025 compared to 2000-2009, mostly attributed to age dynamics, is associated to a decline of 18% of forest sink (26% for living biomass only). CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the FRL exercise was challenging but improved the modelling capacity and data availability at country scale. The present study contributes to increase the transparency of the implementation of forest-related EU policies and provides evidence-based support to future policy development.

Which practices co-deliver food security, climate change mitigation and adaptation, and combat land degradation and desertification?

There is a clear need for transformative change in the land management and food production sectors to address the global land challenges of climate change mitigation, climate change adaptation, combatting land degradation and desertification, and delivering food security (referred to hereafter as "land challenges"). We assess the potential for 40 practices to address these land challenges and find that: Nine options deliver medium to large benefits for all four land challenges. A further two options have no global estimates for adaptation, but have medium to large benefits for all other land challenges. Five options have large mitigation potential (>3 Gt CO2 eq/year) without adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Five options have moderate mitigation potential, with no adverse impacts on the other land challenges. Sixteen practices have large adaptation potential (>25 million people benefit), without adverse side effects on other land challenges. Most practices can be applied without competing for available land. However, seven options could result in competition for land. A large number of practices do not require dedicated land, including several land management options, all value chain options, and all risk management options. Four options could greatly increase competition for land if applied at a large scale, though the impact is scale and context specific, highlighting the need for safeguards to ensure that expansion of land for mitigation does not impact natural systems and food security. A number of practices, such as increased food productivity, dietary change and reduced food loss and waste, can reduce demand for land conversion, thereby potentially freeing-up land and creating opportunities for enhanced implementation of other practices, making them important components of portfolios of practices to address the combined land challenges.

On the realistic contribution of European forests to reach climate objectives.

A recent article by Luyssaert et al. (Nature 562:259-262, 2018) analyses the climate impact of forest management in the European Union, considering both biogeochemical (i.e., greenhouse gases, GHG) and biophysical (e.g., albedo, transpiration, etc.) effects. Based on their findings, i.e. that additional net overall climate benefits from forest management would be modest, the authors conclude that the EU "should not rely on forest management to mitigate climate change". We first explain that most of the additional EU GHG mitigation effort by 2030 is expected to come from emission reductions and only a very small part from forestry, even when forest bioenergy is allowed for. Nevertheless, the inclusion of forest management in climate change mitigation strategies is key to identifying the country-specific optimal mix, in terms of overall GHG balance, between strategies focused on conserving and/or enhancing the sink and strategies focused on using more wood to reduce emissions in other GHG sectors. Then, while acknowledging the importance that biophysical effects have on the climate, especially at the local and seasonal scale, we argue that the net annual biophysical climate impact of forest management in Europe remains more uncertain than the net CO2 impact. This has not been adequately emphasized by Luyssaert et al. (2018), leading to conclusions on the net overall climate impact of forest management that we consider premature and applied to a partially biased perception of European policy towards forestry and climate change. To avoid further confusion in the debate on how forestry may contribute to mitigating climate change, a more constructive dialogue between the scientific community and policy makers is needed.

Assessing habitat quality in relation to the spatial distribution of protected areas in Italy.

The conservation of species and habitats is increasingly threatened by anthropogenic impacts, particularly land use change, from local to global scales. Although many efforts have been carried out so far to halt or at least reduce the biodiversity loss (e.g., the establishment of protected areas' networks), there are still both knowledge and policy gaps slowing the conservation of species and habitats in complex environments, such as the Mediterranean region. In particular, the human-driven impacts and threats on biodiversity need more careful analysis. Accordingly, this paper aims to assess the habitat quality and degradation in Italy in relation with the spatial pattern of the current protected areas' network, mainly to identify priority areas of intervention, thus supporting large-scale conservation strategies. A survey of experts was conducted to identify the main threats for biodiversity from different land uses at the national scale. The InVEST software was then applied to assess and map habitat quality and degradation with a high spatial resolution (20 m). The relationship between habitat quality and degradation as well as their hotspots, and alternative PA categories were also explored. Results indicate that: (i) habitat quality and degradation depend on the location and intensity of the anthropogenic impacts and are sensitive to different protection levels; (ii) the combination of the survey of experts and the spatially-explicit assessment of habitat quality and degradation is useful to highlight variations of the current conditions of biodiversity and habitats; and (iii) the identification of hotspots allows one to identify priority areas for conservation. Accordingly, the proposed approach may be used to strengthen the conservation efforts in similar contexts, and thus support the implementation of the biodiversity-related policies over the long term.

Modeling the influence of alternative forest management scenarios on wood production and carbon storage: A case study in the Mediterranean region.

Forest ecosystems are fundamental for the terrestrial biosphere as they deliver multiple essential ecosystem services (ES). In environmental management, understanding ES distribution and interactions and assessing the economic value of forest ES represent future challenges. In this study, we developed a spatially explicit method based on a multi-scale approach (MiMoSe-Multiscale Mapping of ecoSystem services) to assess the current and future potential of a given forest area to provide ES. To do this we modified and improved the InVEST model in order to adapt input data and simulations to the context of Mediterranean forest ecosystems. Specifically, we integrated a GIS-based model, scenario model, and economic valuation to investigate two ES (wood production and carbon sequestration) and their trade-offs in a test area located in Molise region (Central Italy). Spatial information and trade-off analyses were used to assess the influence of alternative forest management scenarios on investigated services. Scenario A was designed to describe the current Business as Usual approach. Two alternative scenarios were designed to describe management approaches oriented towards nature protection (scenario B) or wood production (scenario C) and compared to scenario A. Management scenarios were simulated at the scale of forest management units over a 20-year time period. Our results show that forest management influenced ES provision and associated benefits at the regional scale. In the test area, the Total Ecosystem Services Value of the investigated ES increases 85% in scenario B and decreases 82% in scenario C, when compared to scenario A. Our study contributes to the ongoing debate about trade-offs and synergies between carbon sequestration and wood production benefits associated with socio-ecological systems. The MiMoSe approach can be replicated in other contexts with similar characteristics, thus providing a useful basis for the projection of benefits from forest ecosystems over the future.